1. Introduction

1.1 Background

In line with Government policy, as a condition of delegation for pay, terms and conditions for non–SCS grades, HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) must undertake a full Equal Pay Audit every three years. Since HMRC was created in 2005, Equal Pay Reviews have been carried out in 2008 and 2010.

The purpose of this 2013 Equal Pay Audit is to confirm that the pay system following the 2013 pay award complies with the Equality Act 2010, and remains free from bias in terms of the protected characteristics of gender, age, ethnicity, disability and working patterns.

The Equal Pay Audit is structured in separate sections for each of the five protected characteristics reviewed: gender, age, ethnicity, disability and working pattern. Within each section, data on pay, performance management, Recognition Bonus Scheme, Simply Thanks, permanent and temporary promotions are compared and any significant pay gaps investigated.

1.2 Data

The data used to produce the tables in this report is from HMRC’s online HR and 2013 payroll system (ERP) and was extracted after the 2013 Pay Award which was paid on 31 August, backdated to 1 June. The pay data represents the number of staff in eight delegated grades – Admin. Assistant (AA), Assistant Officer (AO), Officer (O), Higher Officer (HO), Senior Officer (SO), Band T, Grade 7 (G7), and Grade 6 (G6) - in post at 1 September 2013 but excludes 118 people on reserved rights terms from former Inland Revenue (IR) and Customs and Excise (C&E) as this group is too small to be analysed.

Pay gaps have been measured using mean averages – these are best suited for distributions that are symmetric at all grades. Although large numbers of staff are on their pay scale maximum, the ranges are devoid of outliers and as such a mean comparison is best. This is a change from how we measured the pay gap in the two previous Equal Pay Reviews 2008 and 2010, where we used median averages. We have amended our approach because means more accurately reflect the distribution of values than median. For comparison with the previous 2008 and 2010 Equal Pay Reviews, the medians are shown in Appendix 1.

The data for temporary promotions, permanent promotions and Recognition Bonus Scheme (RBS) was extracted from ERP for the period 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013 for delegated staff (excluding staff on IR/CE terms). In relation to RBS this was for payments made during this period. See Appendix 3 for the full statistics.

The top performance mark data relates to performance year 2012/13, which runs from 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013. The data was extracted for 9,665 staff who had a top performance marking recorded on ERP.

The top performance award data (appraisal year 2012/13) is drawn from payments made in 2013/14.

Paragraph 1 explains in detail the extraction and data cleansing process.

In common with most equal pay reviews we have adopted a practical approach to calculating pay gaps by expressing the protected characteristics’ pay as a percentage of the comparators’ pay e.g.

______________________________________________________________________

1 The arithmetic mean is the most typically used measure of the ‘average’ of a set of values. This is calculated by dividing the sum of the values by the number of values.

2 In comparison with mean, median is another way to find the ‘average’ of a set of values. This is calculated by ordering the values and taking the central value as the average. the mean salaries of women are calculated as a percentage of the men's mean salaries, or the mean salaries of Black, Asian or Minority Ethnic (BAME) staff are calculated as a percentage of the white staff's mean salaries.

Where the percentage difference shown is less than 0, the protected characteristic has the lead and where it is greater than 0, the comparator has the lead.

Where any figure (e.g. mean/median salaries and Recognition Bonus Scheme payments, promotions) is based on groups of less than 5 people, the amount has been replaced with an asterisk (\*) for confidentiality purposes. Totals represent figures excluding asterisk.

To analyse the data on the Recognition Bonus Scheme, Simply Thanks and promotions the tables show the percentage of people in that grade in receipt shown as a percentage of all people in that grade and compared with the same calculation for the other protected characteristics. If the percentages are the same then there is no bias while any differences could indicate favour towards a particular group.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission's definition of a significant pay gap that requires further investigation and explanation is a gap of 5% or more or patterns of differences of 3%. It is this definition we have applied when analysing the data tables contained in this report. 2. Policy Background

2.1 Base Pay

For the 2009/10 and 2010/11 Pay Awards greater priority was given to progression for people below the pay range maximum. For both years the pay range maximum were frozen and people on the maximum received an award limited to 1%. Those below the range maximum who were not affected by the cap on the range maximum received average increases of 4% in 2009/10 and 2010/11 respectively (excludes staff requiring an uplift to the pay range new minimum). The length of the pay ranges were shortened by increases applied to the pay range minimum of between 3% and 7%, which reduced the monetary gap between the minimum and maximum. Nearly 7,300 staff were moved to the range maximum as a result of the pay progression.

The 2010 Budget announced a two-year pay freeze for public sector workforces, except for workers earning less than £21,000 a year who received an increase of at least £250 per year in both years. As HMRC was in the second year of a two year settlement, HMRC's pay freeze started on 1 June 2011 and ended in 31 May 2013.

During the two year pay freeze - 2011/12 and 2012/13, HMRC paid a consolidated increase of £250 in each year to all staff whose full time equivalent salary was below £21,000 with the exception of those who received a “Poor performance” mark, who did not receive an award, unless they were affected by the increase to the pay range minimum.

Following the pay freeze, in 2013 HMRC implemented an average pay award increase of 1%, which delivered a guaranteed minimum award of 0.7% of base pay for all staff with the remainder of the 1% average award targeted towards people below their pay range maximum. The pay range minimum and maximum for all pay ranges remained at the 2012 levels.

The process of shortening pay ranges during the years has meant that the average length of the ranges (i.e. the extent to which the range maximum exceeds the range minimum) has reduced from 38% in 2005, when HMRC was formed, to 14% in 2010, the last pay award, before the pay freeze.

Since this report has been finalised, we have published details of the 2015 pay award. Everyone received

- a basic award – consolidated and pensionable – of 0.5% of their 2014 pay range maximum
- an increase to the pay range maximum for all grades, except Band T, of 0.5% - allowing the basic element of the pay award to be consolidated for people on the pay range maximum
- increases to the pay range minimum for all grades, except Band T, which will be applied before the pay award
- an additional element paid to all colleagues who are below the pay range maximum after adding the basic award – this will be capped at the pay range maximum
- people who received an exceeded marking in their end of year review will receive a non-consolidated performance award, decided by grade and pay area.

2.2. Performance Management and performance awards

The annual pay award also pays a performance award to staff who receive a top performance mark. The fund for the award is ring-fenced and the value of the award depends on the number of people who receive a top performer mark and their base pay, as the performance award is paid as a percentage of an individual’s base pay. This is the element of the pay award that differentiates and rewards the performance of a top performer.

The performance award is paid as a non-consolidated, non-pensionable lump sum, and is pro-rated for people who have worked part time hours, or/and worked less than the entire performance year, e.g. due to unpaid leave. Since 2005, the Top performance award (percentage of base pay) has been:

| Year | Award | |------|-------| | 2005 | 2.50% | | 2006 | 3.00% | | 2007 | 2.60% | | 2008 | 2.40% | | 2009 | 2.60% | | 2010 | 2.25% | | 2011 | 2.50% | | 2012 | 2.85% | | 2013 | 2.55% |

The staff headcount data used in the performance management tables relates to staff in 2013/14 who received a top performance award based on their performance in appraisal year 2012/13. The staff headcount used in the pay tables for this report relates to staff in post at 1 September 2013 (post pay award), and so there is a difference between the two sets of headcount data.

### 2.3 Recognition Bonus Scheme (RBS)

The primary emphasis of HMRC’s Recognition Bonus scheme is to recognise and reward exceptional performance by individuals, and if appropriate teams. The bonus is available to all staff below Senior Civil Service (SCS); however, the emphasis is on recognising and rewarding staff below G7.

The scheme came into effect on 1 February 2006 and replaced the former IR special bonus and the former CE manager’s reward scheme.

The amount of the bonus is:

- determined by merit and not by grade
- in the range of £100 - £1000 gross
- £1000 is the maximum payable for an individual award
- paid with salary, and subject to PAYE / NIC; and
- Non-consolidated and non-pensionable.

### 2.4 Simply Thanks Scheme

HMRC introduced the Simply Thanks scheme in June 2010. The scheme allows managers to show their appreciation of their staff immediately by awarding a £20 voucher. The emphasis of Simply Thanks is on local recognition of local actions. The value of the voucher is small because it is the act of recognition itself and the esteem it gives that is important. Vouchers can be given to anyone in Grade AA to G6. HMRC meet the tax and National Insurance payable on the vouchers.

Managers use their judgement about when to use the vouchers. Consequently, there are no set criteria for the award.

Examples could include recognising:

- supporting colleagues at short notice to deliver a business goal or to ensure continuity of customer service
- going the extra mile for a customer (both internal and external)
- helping out when a colleague is absent
- supporting new team members.

Business areas can also choose to identify and recognise specific behaviours or achievements that relate to core values. These should be reviewed at regular intervals to ensure they are still relevant. The scheme could for example be used to promote a specific activity or campaign in the long or short term generating attention and interest.

Examples could include recognising:

- good customer service
- promoting or resolving health and safety issues
- contributions to environmental activities
- cost saving ideas etc.

### 2.5 Temporary Promotions

The maximum period an individual should be on temporary promotion is 6 months as it should only be considered to fill temporary vacancies such as:

- a permanent post while the jobholder is temporarily absent for more than 4 weeks, for example, on loan, secondment, maternity leave, long-term sick
- work on a project that will last less than 6 months
- work in a business area or job that will cease to exist within 6 months.

HR Directors can agree to an extension to the normal 6 months for temporary promotions where there is a business need. This will most likely be where it is known at the outset that the work will last longer than 6 months and there is a need to retain continuity over the lifetime of the work.

Individuals are eligible to be considered for temporary promotion if they are

- permanent members of staff or on normal fixed term appointments and
- assessed by their manager as suitable for promotion to the grade.

Individuals are not eligible for temporary promotion where they are:

- on a temporary fixed term appointment
- being monitored under the Managing Poor Attendance/Performance procedures or
- currently debarred from promotion following a conduct, discipline or behaviour offence.

3. Management Summary

The following summarises the main findings from this equal pay audit:

3.1 Gender gap

Our data indicates that the overall gender base pay gap, taking no account of grades or location shows that men receive a basic pay that is on average 12% higher than women. The median difference is 19%. This is likely to be explained by the unequal representation of men and women within grades. Although women represent 59% of our workforce, the proportion of women in each grade decreases with seniority of each grade. Our performance management markings show that as a proportion of gender, a higher proportion of women receive a top performance marking at all grades, compared to men.

Overall, there was only a slight difference (1%) between the proportion of men (11%) and women (10%) who received recognition bonus. There is a larger difference though at G7, where only 15% of women received a recognition bonus, compared with 19% of men. In monetary terms, the mean average of the recognition bonus received by men is £288, against £268 for female. At AA, AO and Band T, the bonus values have been greater for men (5-10% more), though at G6 there is a significant difference in favour of women (18%). Our data also highlight that staff in higher grades received higher value awards, although this is not the intention of the scheme.

Simply Thanks vouchers, at the set value of £20, were awarded to a higher proportion of women than men in all grades except AO. The difference was significant at G6, where 20% of women received a Simply Thanks voucher, compared to 12% of men.

For temporary promotions, there was a slight difference (1%) between the proportion of men (11%) and women (10%) being temporarily promoted. At AO, 4% more men were temporarily promoted than women. This trend was reversed at SO level, where 4% more women were temporarily promoted than men.

For permanent promotions, the total results were the same between men and women, though there was a slight and insignificant difference when broken down by grade and gender.

3.2 Age

Over three quarters of the department are aged 36 or over and nearly half are aged 46 or over. The analysis of median pay by age revealed that for AA to HO grades the median pay is either equal to or near to the payband maximum but for G7 and G6 the median pay increases by age. This suggests that there may be some correlation between length of service and rate of pay.

The number of recognition bonuses awarded to staff aged 36 and over was almost double those reported in the 2010 Equal Pay Review, though figures indicate that those at each end of the age ranges, aged 25 and under, and 65+, received half the number of bonuses of other age groups.

3.3 Ethnicity

26% of staff have chosen not to declare the ethnic group they identify with. This makes it impossible for us to draw any meaningful conclusions about patterns of bias from the ethnicity data we hold. For those that have declared their ethnic group as BAME, 80% are in the lower grades of AA - O. Work needs to continue to encourage staff to declare their ethnicity, in order for our analysis to be of more use. 3.4 Disability

42% of staff have chosen not to declare whether they have a disability as defined under the Equality Act 2010. This is a slight improvement on our previous survey where 49% of staff had not made a declaration. However, these figures make it impossible for us to draw any meaningful conclusions about any patterns of bias related to disability. Culturally, we need to look again at why staff choose not to declare whether or not they have a disability and what we can do to improve the trust and confidence staff have in us to inform us of their status. Only then can we be in a better position to address whether there are any statistically significant differences in employee experiences in relation to their disability status.

3.5 Working Hours

Over a third of HMRC staff work part-time hours, which includes part year and partial retirement arrangements. The overall mean basic pay gap between full-time and part-time staff is in favour of part-time staff, and at all grades (and locations). Part-time workers are receiving a higher base pay (mean average) compared to full-time workers. Proportionately, more full-time staff received recognition bonuses than part-time staff. Full-time staff also appear to have received significantly more top performance management ratings - 6-10% more - than part-time staff.

3.6 Recommendations

The Equal Pay Audit 2013 has identified several recommendations in order to continue our efforts to reduce basic pay gaps. These will form our Action Plan at Appendix 4.

Pay Range Shortening: To continue to focus our pay strategy towards shortening the length of pay ranges, though this is dependent on future public sector pay policy and available funding for pay.

Note. During the time that this report has been finalised, details of the 2015 pay awards have been published. On average, the length of the pay ranges have been further reduced from an average of 14% (2013) to 11.7% (2015), with a particular reduction of 3.9 to 4% at AA.

Support flexible and part-time working patterns: We should continue to support flexible and part-time working patterns across all grades, subject to the needs of the business, ensuring that both the organisation and our people benefit from a fully flexible and responsive workforce suitable for the modern Civil Service.

Monitor and review the performance management policy: End of year ratings should continue to be monitored and feedback sought about the operation of the performance management system.

Note. During the time that this report has been finalised, Internal Audit have been commissioned to carry out an audit in 2015 of the performance management process since its introduction in 2013.

Improve Ethnicity and Disability declaration rates: We need to actively explore ways of improving staff communication to encourage ethnicity and disability declarations.

Strongly encourage all staff to undertake the unconscious bias training. 4. Gender

4.1 Introduction

The headcount for HMRC (excluding the Senior Civil Service and Legal Trainees) was 70,842 as at 1 September 2013.

- This is a reduction of 5% on the headcount of 74,571 used for the 2010 Equal Pay Review.
- The gender split remains the same at 59% women and 41% men.

Table 1 shows headcount by grade and gender across the Department, irrespective of location.

Table 1: Headcount by grade and gender

| Grade | Women | Men | Total | |----------------|-------|------|-------| | Admin. Assistant | 3,356 | 1,835 | 5,191 | | Assistant Officer | 21,239 | 11,276 | 32,515 | | Officer | 9,295 | 6,504 | 15,799 | | Higher Officer | 4,352 | 4,873 | 9,225 | | Senior Officer | 1,565 | 2,164 | 3,729 | | Band T | 188 | 309 | 497 | | Grade 7 | 1,137 | 1,573 | 2,710 | | Grade 6 | 420 | 756 | 1,176 | | **Total** | 41,552 | 29,290 | 70,842 |

Chart 1 shows proportion of each gender in each grade. The proportion of women in each grade decreases with seniority of grade. Table 2 shows gender breakdown by location. In London the gender split is almost equal, as there are proportionally fewer staff at Officer and below that have higher proportions of women.

| Grade | London | National | |----------------|--------|----------| | | Women | Men | Total | Women | Men | Total | | Admin. Assistant | 263 | 130 | 393 | 3,093 | 1,705 | 4,798 | | Assistant Officer | 962 | 449 | 1,411 | 20,277 | 10,827 | 31,104 | | Officer | 1,090 | 943 | 2,033 | 8,205 | 5,561 | 13,766 | | Higher Officer | 760 | 1,038 | 1,798 | 3,592 | 3,835 | 7,427 | | Senior Officer | 313 | 537 | 850 | 1,252 | 1,627 | 2,879 | | Band T | 81 | 120 | 201 | 107 | 189 | 296 | | Grade 7 | 377 | 520 | 897 | 760 | 1053 | 1,813 | | Grade 6 | 194 | 319 | 513 | 226 | 437 | 663 | | **Total** | 4,040 | 4,056 | 8,096 | 37,512 | 25,234 | 62,746 |

4.2 Base Pay

Tables 3 (mean) and 4 (median) shows overall gender pay gap for HMRC at 1 September 2013 as 12% in favour of men.

The median shows a difference of 19%, (see Appendix 1 Table A and B) down from 22% reported in the 2010 Equal Pay Review.

| Grades AA - G6 | Women | Men | Difference | |----------------|-------|-----|------------| | £23,991 | £27,197 | +12% |

| Grades AA - G6 | Women | Men | Difference | |----------------|-------|-----|------------| | £19,974 | £24,537 | +19% |

However, when broken down by grade (see table 5 and Chart 2) a difference of 2% exists at AO in favour of women. At HO, SO, G7 and G6 there is a difference of 2% in favour of men, which is below the 3% difference needed to indicate a pattern of inequality.

| Grade | Women | Men | Difference | |----------------|-------|-----|------------| | Admin. Assistant | £16,407 | £16,235 | -1% | | Assistant Officer | £19,436 | £19,108 | -2% | | Officer | £25,746 | £25,788 | 0% | | Higher Officer | £31,694 | £32,208 | 2% | | Senior Officer | £38,258 | £38,980 | 2% | | Band T | £30,829 | £30,577 | -1% | | Grade 7 | £51,614 | £52,508 | 2% | | Grade 6 | £65,245 | £66,522 | 2% | Table 6 shows mean salaries for London staff by grade and gender. It shows that there is a difference at G7 and G6, in favour of men and 1% favouring towards women at AO.

Table 6: Mean London salary by grade and gender

| Grade | Women | Men | Difference | |-------------|--------|-------|------------| | Admin. Assistant | 20,398 | 20,355 | 0% | | Assistant Officer | 23,555 | 23,412 | -1% | | Officer | 29,388 | 29,391 | 0% | | Higher Officer | 35,442 | 35,448 | 0% | | Senior Officer | 41,198 | 41,545 | 1% | | Band T | 30,940 | 31,286 | 1% | | Grade 7 | 55,520 | 56,564 | 2% | | Grade 6 | 68,816 | 70,378 | 2% |

Table 7 shows mean salaries for National staff by grade and gender. It shows:

- There are differences in favour of men at HO, SO, G7 and G6.
- There is a difference in favour of women at AA, AO and Band T. At Band T this is likely to be due to recent recruitment of a large number of men at this grade, lowering the mean for men.

Table 7: Mean National salary by grade and gender

| Grade | Women | Men | Difference | |-------------|--------|-------|------------| | Admin. Assistant | 16,067 | 15,921 | -1% | | Assistant Officer | 19,241 | 18,929 | -2% | | Officer | 25,262 | 25,177 | 0% | | Higher Officer | 30,901 | 31,303 | 1% | | Senior Officer | 37,523 | 38,134 | 2% | | Band T | 30,744 | 30,127 | -2% | | Grade 7 | 49,677 | 50,505 | 2% | | Grade 6 | 62,179 | 63,707 | 2% | 4.3 Top Performance Markings

Chart 3 shows:

- At all grades, a higher proportion of women achieved top performance marking than men.
- At G6, 10.3% more women received a top performance marking than men.

![Chart 3: % of staff achieving top performance marking by gender (labels show difference between genders)](chart)

4.4 Recognition Bonus Scheme

Table 8 shows the number of awards:

- Overall, a higher proportion of men received a recognition bonus than women.
- Proportionally, the largest difference is at G7, where 19% of men received a recognition bonus compared to 15% of women.

| Grade | Number of Recognition Bonuses | % of staff given Recognition Bonus | Difference | |----------------|-------------------------------|-----------------------------------|------------| | | Women | Men | Women | Men | | | | Admin. Assistant | 261 | 125 | 7% | 6% | -1% | | | Assistant Officer | 1,463 | 842 | 7% | 7% | +1% | | | Officer | 1,145 | 793 | 12% | 12% | 0% | | | Higher Officer | 799 | 806 | 18% | 16% | -2% | | | Senior Officer | 279 | 398 | 19% | 19% | 0% | | | Band T | 8 | 20 | 5% | 7% | +2% | | | Grade 7 | 168 | 298 | 15% | 19% | +4% | | | Grade 6 | 63 | 107 | 15% | 14% | -1% | | | Overall | 4,186 | 3,389 | 10% | 11% | +1% | | Chart 4 displays the mean values of awards. Overall the average (mean) recognition bonus for men is £288, compared to £268 for women, a 7% difference in favour of men. A similar result was reported in the 2010 report.

It shows:

- At AA there is a 10% difference in the average value in favour of men.
- At G6 there is an 18% difference in the average value in favour of women.
- Although the bonuses are purportedly based on merit rather than grade, the average award value increases with seniority of grade.

Chart 4: Mean value of Recognition Bonus by grade and gender (labels show % differences)

4.5 Simply Thanks

Table 9 shows:

- At all grades except AO, a higher proportion of women received Simply Thanks awards than men.
- At G6, 20% of women received an award compared to 12% of men – a difference of 8%.

Table 9: Number of Simply Thanks awards by grade and gender

| Grade | Number of Simply Thanks awards | % of staff given Simply Thanks | Difference | |----------------|--------------------------------|-------------------------------|------------| | | Women | Men | Women | Men | | | Admin. Assistant | 1,020 | 534 | 28% | 27% | -0% | | Assistant Officer | 5,867 | 3,356 | 27% | 29% | +2% | | Officer | 2,780 | 1,718 | 29% | 26% | -3% | | Higher Officer | 1,120 | 1,104 | 26% | 23% | -3% | | Senior Officer | 381 | 425 | 25% | 20% | -5% | | Band T | 32 | 49 | 19% | 17% | -2% | | Grade 7 | 231 | 275 | 21% | 18% | -3% | | Grade 6 | 81 | 89 | 20% | 12% | -8% | | Overall | 11,512 | 7,550 | 27% | 25% | -2% | 4.6 Temporary Promotions

Table 10 shows:

- At Officer and below, proportionally more men were temporarily promoted than women.
- At all higher grades, proportionally more women were temporarily promoted than men.

Table 10: Number of temporary promotions and proportion of staff temporarily promoted by grade and gender

| Grade | Number of temporary promotions | % of staff temporarily promoted | Difference | |----------------|--------------------------------|--------------------------------|------------| | | Women | Men | Women | Men | | | Admin. Assistant | 702 | 388 | 19% | 20% | +1% | | Assistant Officer | 1,551 | 1,236 | 7% | 11% | +4% | | Officer | 1,077 | 796 | 11% | 12% | +1% | | Higher Officer | 462 | 451 | 11% | 9% | -1% | | Senior Officer | 174 | 173 | 12% | 8% | -3% | | Band T | * | * | 2% | 0% | -1% | | Grade 7 | 82 | 103 | 7% | 7% | -1% | | Grade 6 | 14 | 12 | 3% | 2% | -2% | | Overall | 4,062 | 3,159 | 10% | 11% | +1% |

4.7 Permanent Promotions

Table 11 shows:

- Overall, the proportion of men and women who were permanently promoted was the same, 6%.
- At grade level, differences between the genders were small proportionally.

Table 11: Number of permanent promotions and proportion of staff permanently promoted by grade and gender

| Grade | Number of permanent promotions | % of staff permanently promoted | Difference | |----------------|--------------------------------|--------------------------------|------------| | | Women | Men | Women | Men | | | Admin. Assistant | 946 | 508 | 26% | 26% | +0% | | Assistant Officer | 496 | 407 | 2% | 4% | +1% | | Officer | 545 | 426 | 6% | 6% | +1% | | Higher Officer | 266 | 237 | 6% | 5% | -1% | | Senior Officer | 122 | 128 | 8% | 6% | -2% | | Band T | 29 | 45 | 17% | 15% | -2% | | Grade 7 | 46 | 82 | 4% | 5% | +1% | | Grade 6 | 3 | 3 | 1% | 0% | -0% | | Overall | 2,453 | 1,836 | 6% | 6% | +0% | 4.8 Summary

Table 12 summarises the differences between men and women across the pay and reward types considered in this section.

- Negative % indicates a difference in favour of women
- Positive % indicates a difference in favour of men

Table 12: Summary of % differences between male and female staff by grade and pay/reward type

| Grade | Base Pay | Top Performance Marking | Recognition Bonus Scheme | Simply Thanks | Promotion | |----------------|----------|--------------------------|---------------------------|---------------|-----------| | | London | National | Number | Value | Temp. | Perm. | | Admin. Assistant | 0% | -1% | -3% | -1% | 10% | 0% | 1% | 1% | | Assistant Officer | -1% | -2% | -1% | 1% | 5% | 2% | 4% | 1% | | Officer | 0% | 0% | -1% | 0% | 3% | -3% | 1% | 1% | | Higher Officer | 0% | 1% | -2% | -2% | -3% | -3% | -1% | -1% | | Senior Officer | 1% | 2% | -6% | 0% | -3% | -5% | -3% | -2% | | Band T | 1% | -2% | 0% | 2% | 8% | -2% | -1% | -2% | | Grade 7 | 2% | 2% | 0% | 4% | -2% | -3% | -1% | 1% | | Grade 6 | 2% | 2% | -10% | -1% | -18% | -8% | -2% | 0% |

Difference of 5% or greater in favour of female staff Difference of 5% or greater in favour of male staff

Although there are large differences at particular grades in favour of both men and women, there does not appear to be a consistent bias across the reward types at any grade. 5. Age

5.1 Introduction

Table 13 shows headcount by grade and age group. It shows

- Over 37% of employees are in the 46 - 55 age bracket.
- At AA, the figures for this age group are considerably less than those in the 2010 Equal Pay Review (2,734) as a result of AA staff being promoted.
- Over 55% of the department are aged 46 or over, which is an increase of 3% from the 2010 review.
- Only 21% are aged between 16 and 35, a decrease of 1% since the previous review.

Table 13: Headcount by grade and age group

| Grade | 16-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-55 | 56-64 | 65+ | Total | |----------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-----|-------| | Admin. Assistant | 249 | 693 | 881 | 1,712 | 1,401 | 256 | 5,192 | | Assistant Officer | 2,650 | 7,491 | 7,760 | 9,950 | 4,286 | 375 | 32,512| | Officer | 130 | 1,864 | 3,953 | 6,706 | 2,952 | 196 | 15,801| | Higher Officer | 17 | 712 | 2,013 | 4,379 | 1,993 | 110 | 9,224 | | Senior Officer | * | 192 | 704 | 1,874 | 918 | 39 | 3,727 | | Band T | 145 | 237 | 76 | 37 | * | * | 495 | | Grade 7 | * | 408 | 573 | 1,170 | 527 | 29 | 2,707 | | Grade 6 | * | 54 | 207 | 584 | 312 | 19 | 1,176 | | Total | 3,191 | 11,651| 16,167| 26,412| 12,389| 1,024| 70,834|

5.2 Base Pay

Tables 14 and 15 show average mean salaries by age band for London and National staff. There has been little change due to the two year pay freeze and a 1% pay award. In general they show

- for staff at AO and Officer the mean is near the maximum across the age bands except for bands 16 - 25.
- for staff at HO in London/National and SO in London the mean is near the maximum from age band 56+.

We are aware that concerns continue to be raised regarding the length of time taken to reach the maximum salary rate of our grades and the interaction with discrimination. These concerns have been compounded by the two year pay freeze and the 1% pay award limit for 2013 and uncertainty in future years.

Table 14: Mean London salary within grade and age group (£)

| Grade | 16-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-55 | 56-64 | 65+ | |----------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-----| | Admin. Assistant | 18,595| 20,362| 20,420| 20,370| 20,441| 20,443| | Assistant Officer | 21,559| 22,911| 23,526| 23,604| 23,639| 23,825| | Officer | 26,212| 27,513| 29,402| 29,779| 29,970| 29,996| | Higher Officer | 32,537| 32,550| 34,617| 36,065| 36,526| 36,636| | Senior Officer | 37,990| 38,812| 40,183| 41,861| 42,574| 42,794| | Band T | 28,976| 31,867| 36,843| 37,101| 37,542| * | | Grade 7 | 53,017| 53,655| 55,087| 56,899| 58,807| 59,178| | Grade 6 | * | 64,161| 67,057| 69,984| 72,668| 74,209| Table 15: Mean National salary within grade and age group (£)

| Grade | 16-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-55 | 56-64 | 65+ | |-------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-----| | Admin. Assistant | 14,884 | 16,106 | 16,064 | 16,129 | 16,138 | 16,146 | | Assistant Officer | 18,011 | 18,660 | 19,358 | 19,495 | 19,439 | 19,535 | | Officer | 22,896 | 23,538 | 24,910 | 25,614 | 25,877 | 25,954 | | Higher Officer | 29,243 | 29,216 | 30,133 | 31,353 | 32,112 | 32,383 | | Senior Officer | * | 35,753 | 36,645 | 37,893 | 38,994 | 39,592 | | Band T | 27,682 | 30,033 | 31,475 | 34,552 | 36,659 | * | | Grade 7 | 47,388 | 48,018 | 48,757 | 50,157 | 52,559 | 54,250 | | Grade 6 | * | 59,146 | 60,740 | 62,913 | 65,459 | 65,058 |

There is additional information in relation to numbers and percentages of staff on the max and not on the max at each grade by age band and this can be found at Appendix 2.

5.3 Top Performance Marking

Table 16 shows percentage of staff achieving a top performance mark within grade and age group. It shows:

- 29% of staff at G6 and G7 in the 65+ age group received a top performance marking.
- This is a 100% increase on figures recorded in the 2010 Equal Pay Review.

Table 16: Percentage of staff achieving top performance marking within grade and age group

| Grade | 16-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-55 | 56-64 | 65+ | |-------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-----| | Admin. Assistant | 18% | 15% | 13% | 12% | 9% | 6% | | Assistant Officer | 9% | 14% | 13% | 11% | 7% | 3% | | Officer | 13% | 20% | 18% | 15% | 9% | 3% | | Higher Officer | 21% | 26% | 21% | 19% | 10% | 8% | | Senior Officer | - | 27% | 23% | 22% | 14% | 6% | | Band T | 9% | 10% | 5% | 3% | - | - | | Grade 7 | 0% | 25% | 22% | 19% | 14% | 10% | | Grade 6 | - | 25% | 23% | 23% | 16% | 19% | | Overall | 10% | 16% | 16% | 15% | 9% | 5% |

5.4 Recognition Bonus Scheme

Table 17 shows number and proportion of staff receiving performance recognition bonuses within grade and age group. The number of recognition bonuses awarded to all staff aged 36 and over was almost double the number reported in the 2010 Equal Pay Review.

Table 17: Number and proportion of staff receiving recognition bonus scheme awards within grade and age group

| Grade | 16-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-55 | 56-64 | 65+ | 16-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-55 | 56-64 | 65+ | |-------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-----|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-----| | Admin. Assistant | 15 | 71 | 80 | 127 | 86 | 7 | 6% | 9% | 8% | 7% | 6% | 3% | | Assistant Officer | 107 | 651 | 635 | 669 | 224 | 19 | 4% | 8% | 8% | 7% | 5% | 5% | | Officer | 8 | 241 | 536 | 878 | 261 | 14 | 5% | 13% | 13% | 13% | 9% | 7% | | Higher Officer | * | 134 | 390 | 762 | 308 | 8 | * | 20% | 19% | 17% | 16% | 9% | | Senior Officer | * | 33 | 117 | 358 | 168 | * | * | 19% | 17% | 20% | 19% | * | | Band T | 6 | 18 | * | * | * | * | 5% | 8% | * | * | * | * | | Grade 7 | * | 63 | 110 | 203 | 80 | 6 | * | 16% | 19% | 18% | 16% | 21% | | Grade 6 | * | 5 | 33 | 89 | 42 | * | * | 10% | 16% | 15% | 13% | * | | Overall | 136 | 1,216 | 1,901 | 3,086 | 1,169 | 54 | 4% | 10% | 11% | 12% | 9% | 5% | 5.5 Simply Thanks

Table 18 shows percentage of staff receiving an award by grade and age band. Although there are variations by grade and age it does appear that

- grades AA to Officer across all age bands are more likely to receive a Simply Thanks award than staff in grades HO to Grade 6 across all age bands.
- In the follow up to the 2010 Equal Pay Review only 5% of staff had received a Simply Thanks award whereas the figure now stands at over 26%.

This reflects the increased use of Simply Thanks by managers to reward staff.

Table 18: Number and proportion of staff receiving Simply Thanks awards by grade and age group

| Grade | 16-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-55 | 56-64 | 65+ | 16-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-55 | 56-64 | 65+ | |-------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-----|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-----| | Admin. Assistant | 84 | 265 | 266 | 533 | 362 | 44 | 33% | 32% | 27% | 29% | 24% | 17% | | Assistant Officer | 677 | 2,352 | 2,376 | 2,757 | 990 | 71 | 23% | 30% | 30% | 28% | 23% | 20% | | Officer | 27 | 589 | 1,218 | 1,953 | 675 | 36 | 18% | 32% | 29% | 29% | 23% | 18% | | Higher Officer | * | 182 | 499 | 1,129 | 393 | 18 | * | 27% | 24% | 26% | 20% | 19% | | Senior Officer | * | 51 | 142 | 426 | 184 | * | * | 29% | 21% | 23% | 20% | * | | Band T | 19 | 46 | 12 | * | * | * | 15% | 21% | 15% | * | * | * | | Grade 7 | * | 115 | 113 | 191 | 84 | * | * | 29% | 20% | 17% | 17% | * | | Grade 6 | * | 8 | 34 | 97 | 28 | * | * | 16% | 16% | 17% | 9% | * | | Overall | 807 | 3,608 | 4,660 | 7,086 | 2,716 | 169 | 23% | 30% | 28% | 27% | 22% | 17% |

5.6 Temporary Promotions

Table 19 shows number of staff who have been on temporary promotion at some stage and for varying lengths of time in 2012/13. Staff are shown under the grade that they were temporarily promoted from. As with the 2010 Equal Pay Review, the figures show

- Relative to the overall number of staff in each pay band a higher proportion of staff in the 26 - 35 and 36 - 45 age bands were temporarily promoted.
- A lower proportion of staff in the higher age bands have been on TP, although there are variations by grade.

Table 19: Number of temporary promotions and proportion of staff temporarily promoted by grade and age group

| Grade | 16-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-55 | 56-64 | 65+ | 16-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-55 | 56-64 | 65+ | |-------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-----|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-----| | Admin. Assistant | 114 | 277 | 215 | 327 | 145 | 12 | 45% | 33% | 22% | 18% | 10% | 5% | | Assistant Officer | 169 | 1,250 | 783 | 507 | 76 | * | 6% | 16% | 10% | 5% | 2% | * | | Officer | * | 305 | 671 | 764 | 126 | * | * | 17% | 16% | 11% | 4% | * | | Higher Officer | * | 88 | 259 | 472 | 92 | * | * | 13% | 13% | 11% | 5% | * | | Senior Officer | * | 29 | 90 | 187 | 41 | * | * | 16% | 13% | 10% | 5% | * | | Band T | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | | Grade 7 | * | 35 | 50 | 84 | 15 | * | * | 9% | 9% | 7% | 3% | * | | Grade 6 | * | * | 7 | 13 | 5 | * | * | 3% | 3% | 2% | 2% | * | | Overall | 283 | 1,984 | 2,075 | 2,354 | 500 | 12 | 8% | 17% | 12% | 9% | 4% | 1% | 5.7 Permanent Promotions

Table 20 shows number of permanent promotions and proportions of staff promoted by grade and age group in 2012/13. Staff are shown under the grade that they were permanently promoted from. As with the temporary promotions, the figures show

- Relative to the overall number of staff in each pay band a higher proportion of staff in the 26 - 35 and 36 - 45 age bands were permanently promoted, with respectively 10% and 8% of staff being permanently promoted, compared to 5% or below for all other age bands.
- A lower proportion of staff in the higher age bands have been permanently promoted, although there are variations by grade.

Table 20: Number of permanent promotions and proportion of staff promoted by grade and age group

| Grade | Number of permanent promotions | % of staff permanently promoted | |----------------|--------------------------------|--------------------------------| | | 16-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-55 | 56-64 | 65+ | 16-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-55 | 56-64 | 65+ | | Admin. Assistant | 84 | 350 | 339 | 474 | 189 | 18 | 33% | 42% | 35% | 25% | 13% | 7% | | Assistant Officer | 32 | 416 | 291 | 147 | 17 | * | 1% | 5% | 4% | 1% | 0% | * | | Officer | * | 242 | 355 | 323 | 46 | * | * | 13% | 9% | 5% | 2% | * | | Higher Officer | * | 59 | 182 | 237 | 25 | * | * | 9% | 9% | 5% | 1% | * | | Senior Officer | * | 23 | 77 | 121 | 29 | * | * | 13% | 11% | 7% | 3% | * | | Band T | 5 | 48 | 15 | 6 | * | * | 4% | 22% | 19% | 15% | * | * | | Grade 7 | * | 17 | 48 | 58 | 5 | * | * | 4% | 8% | 5% | 1% | * | | Grade 6 | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | | Overall | 121 | 1,155 | 1,307 | 1,366 | 311 | 18 | 3% | 10% | 8% | 5% | 3% | 2% |

5.8 Summary

Summary table by age group is not possible due to the number of age banding that would be required. 6. Ethnicity

6.1 Introduction

Table 21 shows headcount by grade and ethnicity group. Given the high number of ‘Unknown’ groups recorded, we are unable to draw firm conclusions from this data. Work is ongoing to encourage staff to declare to improve the validity of these figures. Any analysis of the HMRC pay system to establish whether it is free from bias in terms of ethnicity is hindered by the lack of complete ethnicity data.

The figures show

- 26% of staff have either not completed a declaration or have chosen to not declare their ethnic status.
- Since the 2010 equal pay review there has been a 4% increase in the number of staff classified as BAME (1%) and white (3%) resulting in a decrease in a reduction in the unknowns.
- Of the total number of BAME staff 80% are in grades AA to O and 20% are in all other grades.

Table 21: Headcount by grade and ethnicity group

| Grade | BAME | White | Unknown | Total | |----------------|------|-------|---------|--------| | Admin. Assistant | 363 | 3,234 | 1,594 | 5,191 | | Assistant Officer | 2,113| 21,771| 8,631 | 32,515 | | Officer | 1,006| 10,997| 3,796 | 15,799 | | Higher Officer | 509 | 6,292 | 2,424 | 9,225 | | Senior Officer | 151 | 2,701 | 877 | 3,729 | | Band T | 33 | 280 | 184 | 497 | | Grade 7 | 129 | 1,922 | 659 | 2,710 | | Grade 6 | 40 | 847 | 289 | 1,176 | | **Total** | 4,344| 48,044| 18,454 | 70,842 |

6.2 Base Pay

Table 22 and 23 show mean salaries by grade and ethnicity group for London and National staff.

Table 22 shows

- There are differences between the London mean salaries for HO, SO and G7 in favour of white staff.
- A significant difference of 4% for Band T in favour of BAME staff.

The comparison of National mean salaries by grade and ethnicity group in table 23 shows:

- differences in favour of white staff for 6 out of 8 grades of 1 - 2%.

The difference at National G6 is highest with a significant difference of 4%.

Table 22: Mean London salary by grade and ethnicity group (£)

| Grade | BAME | White | Unknown | Difference | |----------------|-------|-------|---------|------------| | Admin. Assistant | 20,420| 20,359| 20,368 | 0% | | Assistant Officer | 23,500| 23,492| 23,539 | 0% | | Officer | 29,315| 29,409| 29,430 | 0% | | Higher Officer | 35,284| 35,519| 35,594 | 1% | | Senior Officer | 41,036| 41,505| 41,400 | 1% | | Band T | 33,990| 32,679| 29,472 | -4% | | Grade 7 | 55,628| 56,137| 56,280 | 1% | | Grade 6 | 69,390| 69,467| 70,722 | 0% | Table 23: Mean National salary by grade and ethnicity group (£)

| Grade | BAME | White | Unknown | Difference | |------------------|-------|-------|---------|------------| | Admin. Assistant | 15,881| 16,038| 15,988 | 1% | | Assistant Officer| 18,788| 19,170| 19,101 | 2% | | Officer | 24,819| 25,220| 25,309 | 2% | | Higher Officer | 30,589| 31,106| 31,172 | 2% | | Senior Officer | 37,650| 37,873| 37,868 | 1% | | Band T | 29,877| 30,420| 30,271 | 2% | | Grade 7 | 49,956| 50,123| 50,285 | 0% | | Grade 6 | 61,010| 63,226| 63,184 | 4% |

6.3 Top Performance Marking

Table 24 and Chart 5 shows data from the 2012/13 appraisal year (reflecting the performance awards paid in 2013/14). To analyse the data in the tables the percentage of Top performance awards made to BAME and white staff have to be compared with the percentage of BAME and white staff in each grade while also considering the high number of unknowns.

They show percentage of staff achieving a top performance marking by ethnicity group

- There is a pattern of a lower proportion of BAME staff receiving a Top marking.
- For all grades except Band T the percentage of Top performance awards to BAME staff is either equal to or lower than the percentage of BAME staff in the grade.
- For white staff the data shows that for all grades except Band T the percentage of Top performance awards is higher than the percentage of white staff in the grade.

Table 24: % of staff achieving top performance marking by ethnicity group

| Grade | BAME | White | Unknown | % Difference | |------------------|------|-------|---------|--------------| | Admin. Assistant | 10% | 13% | 9% | +3% | | Assistant Officer| 10% | 12% | 9% | +2% | | Officer | 9% | 16% | 13% | +7% | | Higher Officer | 12% | 19% | 17% | +7% | | Senior Officer | 11% | 21% | 21% | +10% | | Band T | 14% | 8% | 7% | -6% | | Grade 7 | 8% | 21% | 18% | +12% | | Grade 6 | 17% | 23% | 17% | +6% | | Overall | 10% | 15% | 12% | +5% |

Chart 5: Percentage of staff achieving top performance marking by ethnicity group (Labels show difference between groups) It is the unknown category that is accounting for most of the differences between the white and BAME Top performance marks. It is only with higher declaration rates that we will be able to make a fuller evaluation of the ethnicity data.

### 6.4 Recognition Bonus Scheme

Table 25 shows number and proportion of staff receiving recognition bonus scheme awards by grade and ethnicity group during 2012/13. It shows

- White staff received a higher percentage of awards between AA to SO and significant differences at G7 and G6.
- For Band T, BAME staff received a higher percentage than white staff.

#### Table 25: Number and proportion of staff receiving recognition bonus scheme awards by grade and ethnicity group

| Grade | Number of Recognition Bonuses | % of staff given Recognition Bonus | |----------------|-------------------------------|-----------------------------------| | | BAME | White | Unknown | BAME | White | Unknown | Difference | | Admin. Assistant | 26 | 265 | 95 | 7% | 8% | 5% | +1% | | Assistant Officer | 141 | 1,640 | 524 | 7% | 7% | 6% | +1% | | Officer | 96 | 1,453 | 389 | 9% | 13% | 10% | +4% | | Higher Officer | 80 | 1,130 | 395 | 16% | 18% | 16% | +2% | | Senior Officer | 23 | 517 | 137 | 15% | 20% | 16% | +4% | | Band T | * | 21 | * | 9% | 7% | 3% | -2% | | Grade 7 | 12 | 343 | 111 | 10% | 18% | 17% | +8% | | Grade 6 | * | 140 | 29 | 3% | 17% | 10% | +14% | | Overall | 378 | 5,509 | 1,680 | 9% | 11% | 9% | +3% |

Chart 6 shows mean value of recognition bonuses by ethnicity group and grade.

- For grades AA, Officer, HO and G6 the average award for BAME staff is lower than the average award for white staff.
- For all other grades the average awards for BAME staff is higher.
- The highest difference is £296 at G6 in favour of white staff.

This is similar to the results in the 2010 Equal Pay Review.

#### Chart 6: Mean value of Recognition Bonus by ethnicity group and grade (labels show % differences)

6.5 Simply Thanks

Table 26 shows a comparison of the Simply Thanks vouchers awarded by ethnicity group and grade. Of the overall 26% staff receiving Simply Thanks awards in HMRC 19% were awarded to white staff.

The 2012/13 results shows BAME staff received a lower number of Simply Thanks awards compared to white staff. It shows

- A difference at AO at HO and at G6.
- Significant differences of 5% and above are at AA and Officer in favour of white staff in these grades.
- At SO, Band T and G7 the difference are in favour of BAME staff.

Table 26: Number and proportion of staff receiving Simply Thanks by grade and ethnicity group

| Grade | Number of Simply Thanks awards | % of staff given Simply Thanks | |----------------|--------------------------------|--------------------------------| | | BAME | White | Unknown | BAME | White | Unknown | Difference | | Admin. Assistant | 78 | 1,073 | 403 | 21% | 31% | 23% | +10% | | Assistant Officer | 571 | 6,378 | 2,274 | 27% | 29% | 25% | +2% | | Officer | 209 | 3,291 | 998 | 20% | 30% | 26% | +9% | | Higher Officer | 109 | 1,594 | 521 | 22% | 25% | 21% | +3% | | Senior Officer | 41 | 609 | 156 | 27% | 23% | 18% | -4% | | Band T | 6 | 50 | 25 | 19% | 16% | 19% | -2% | | Grade 7 | 26 | 362 | 118 | 21% | 19% | 18% | -2% | | Grade 6 | 5 | 117 | 48 | 13% | 14% | 16% | +1% | | Overall | 1,045 | 13,474| 4,543 | 24% | 28% | 24% | +4% |

6.6 Temporary Promotions

Table 27 shows number of temporary promotions and proportion of staff temporarily promoted by grade and ethnicity group. Overall the percentage between BAME and white staff is equal at 10%. However, when analysing the percentages by grade there are variations in favour and against both white and BAME staff.

Table 27: Number of temporary promotions and proportion of staff temporarily promoted by grade and ethnicity group

| Grade | Number of temporary promotions | % of staff temporarily promoted | |----------------|--------------------------------|--------------------------------| | | BAME | White | Unknown | BAME | White | Unknown | Difference | | Admin. Assistant | 72 | 694 | 324 | 19% | 20% | 18% | +1% | | Assistant Officer | 152 | 2,036 | 599 | 7% | 9% | 7% | +2% | | Officer | 140 | 1,317 | 416 | 14% | 12% | 11% | -2% | | Higher Officer | 45 | 623 | 245 | 9% | 10% | 10% | +1% | | Senior Officer | 19 | 259 | 69 | 13% | 10% | 8% | -3% | | Band T | * | * | * | 3% | 1% | 0% | -2% | | Grade 7 | 7 | 133 | 45 | 6% | 7% | 7% | +1% | | Grade 6 | * | 24 | * | 0% | 3% | 1% | +3% | | Overall | 435 | 5,086 | 1,698 | 10% | 10% | 9% | +1% | 6.7 Permanent Promotions

Table 28 shows number of permanent promotions and proportion of staff promoted by grade and ethnicity group. Overall the percentage difference between BAME and white staff is only 1%. However, when analysing the percentages by grade there is a significant favouring of BAME staff at AA grade by 16%. This may be due to the low numbers of staff at this grade and the high numbers of unknown declarations.

Table 28: Number of permanent promotions and proportion of staff promoted by grade and ethnicity group

| Grade | Number of permanent promotions | % of staff permanently promoted | |----------------|--------------------------------|--------------------------------| | | BAME | White | Unknown | BAME | White | Unknown | Difference | | Admin. Assistant | 157 | 889 | 408 | 41% | 25% | 23% | -16% | | Assistant Officer | 70 | 652 | 181 | 3% | 3% | 2% | -0% | | Officer | 53 | 690 | 228 | 5% | 6% | 6% | +1% | | Higher Officer | 27 | 348 | 128 | 5% | 6% | 5% | +0% | | Senior Officer | 8 | 193 | 49 | 5% | 7% | 6% | +2% | | Band T | 6 | 48 | 20 | 19% | 16% | 16% | -3% | | Grade 7 | * | 95 | 29 | 3% | 5% | 4% | +2% | | Grade 6 | * | 5 | * | * | 1% | 0% | +1% | | Overall | 321 | 2,920 | 1,043 | 7% | 6% | 5% | -1% |

6.8 Summary

Table 29 shows a summary of the percentage differences between BAME and white staff by grade and pay/reward type. These comparisons show

- There is a pattern of a lower proportion of BAME staff receiving a Top marking.
- For all grades except Band T the percentage of Top performance awards to BAME staff is either equal to or lower than the percentage of BAME staff in the grade. Most of the differences are only 1% or 2%.

For white staff the data shows

- For all grades except Band T the percentage of Top performance awards is higher than the percentage of white staff in the grade. The differences are between 3% and 9%.

It is the unknown category that is accounting for most of the differences between the white and BAME Top performance marks. It is only with higher declaration rates that we will be able to make a fuller evaluation of the ethnicity data.

Table 29: Summary of percentage differences between BAME and white staff by grade and pay/reward type

| Grade | Base Pay | Top Performance Marking | Recognition Bonus Scheme | Simply Thanks | Promotion | |----------------|----------|--------------------------|---------------------------|---------------|-----------| | | London | National | Number | Value | Temp. | Perm. | | Admin. Assistant | 0% | 1% | 3% | 1% | 10% | 10% | 1% | -16% | | Assistant Officer | 0% | 2% | 2% | 1% | -5% | 2% | 2% | 0% | | Officer | 0% | 2% | 7% | 4% | 7% | 9% | -2% | 1% | | Higher Officer | 1% | 2% | 7% | 2% | 6% | 3% | 1% | 0% | | Senior Officer | 1% | 1% | 10% | 4% | -4% | -4% | -3% | 2% | | Band T | -4% | 2% | -6% | -2% | -22% | -2% | -2% | -3% | | Grade 7 | 1% | 0% | 12% | 8% | -51% | -2% | 1% | 2% | | Grade 6 | 0% | 4% | 6% | 14% | 54% | 1% | 3% | 1% |

Difference of 5% or greater in favour of BAME staff Difference of 5% or greater in favour of white staff 7. Disability

7.1 Introduction

Table 30 shows declaration of disability (9%) and non-disability (48%) is higher than previous years with only 42% not making a declaration. This is an improvement on 2010 when 49% did not declare however still represents a large proportion of the Department.

Due to such a high unknown category and a low number in the disabled category (particularly in more senior grades) any analytical results need to be treated with caution.

Table 30: Headcount by grade and disability group

| Grade | Disabled | Non-disabled | Unknown | Total | |-------------|----------|--------------|---------|--------| | Admin. Assistant | 677 | 2,109 | 2,405 | 5,191 | | Assistant Officer | 3,097 | 14,907 | 14,511 | 32,515 | | Officer | 1,584 | 8,067 | 6,148 | 15,799 | | Higher Officer | 861 | 4,763 | 3,601 | 9,225 | | Senior Officer | 302 | 2,155 | 1,272 | 3,729 | | Band T | 24 | 240 | 233 | 497 | | Grade 7 | 197 | 1,592 | 921 | 2,710 | | Grade 6 | 71 | 700 | 405 | 1,176 | | **Total** | **6,813**| **34,533** | **29,496**| **70,842** |

7.2 Base Pay

Table 31 shows difference between London mean pay for disabled and non-disabled employees. There are slight differences in favour of disabled staff in 6 of 8 grades, however, the number of non-declarations and their mean could be distorting the end figure.

Table 31: mean London salary by grade and disability group (£)

| Grade | Disabled | Non disabled | Unknown | Difference | |-------------|----------|--------------|---------|------------| | Admin. Assistant | 20,386 | 20,375 | 20,390 | 0% | | Assistant Officer | 23,631 | 23,493 | 23,498 | 1% | | Officer | 29,744 | 29,275 | 29,410 | 2% | | Higher Officer | 35,982 | 35,361 | 35,535 | 2% | | Senior Officer | 41,646 | 41,357 | 41,447 | 1% | | Band T | 33,426 | 33,125 | 32,610 | 1% | | Grade 7 | 56,166 | 56,128 | 56,110 | 0% | | Grade 6 | 70,349 | 69,308 | 70,434 | 1% |

Table 32 shows national differences in mean pay between disabled and non-disabled staff. There are minimal differences in pay across all grades, however, where there are differences, they are in favour of disabled staff.

Table 32: Mean National salary by grade and disability group (£)

| Grade | Disabled | Non disabled | Unknown | Difference | |-------------|----------|--------------|---------|------------| | Admin. Assistant | 16,114 | 16,009 | 15,993 | 1% | | Assistant Officer | 19,301 | 19,105 | 19,125 | 1% | | Officer | 25,328 | 25,226 | 25,202 | 0% | | Higher Officer | 31,274 | 31,115 | 31,055 | 1% | | Senior Officer | 38,150 | 37,845 | 37,840 | 1% | | Band T | 30,311 | 30,432 | 30,242 | 0% | | Grade 7 | 50,270 | 50,097 | 50,244 | 0% | | Grade 6 | 62,958 | 63,254 | 63,100 | 0% | 7.3 Top Performance Marking

Chart 7 shows proportion of staff in each grade receiving a top performance mark. Disabled staff seem less likely to receive a top marking. The new 2014/15 Performance Management system should improve this result and included mandatory training, currently limited to managers, on unconscious bias to prevent this happening.

Chart 7: Percentage of staff achieving top performance marking by disability group (labels show difference between groups)

7.4 Recognition Bonus Scheme

Table 33 shows numbers of staff receiving recognition bonuses over the year. It shows

- At all grades there is little difference between the percentages of awards issued to staff declared as disabled or non-disabled.
- Whilst the percentage difference has remained unchanged since 2010, the percentage of disabled staff in receipt of a recognition bonus has doubled.

Table 33: Number and proportion of staff receiving recognition bonus scheme awards by grade and disability group

| Grade | Number of Recognition Bonuses | % of staff given Recognition Bonus | |----------------|-------------------------------|-----------------------------------| | | Disabled | Non disabled | Unknown | Disabled | Non disabled | Unknown | Difference | | Admin. Assistant | 54 | 172 | 160 | 7% | 7% | 6% | +0% | | Assistant Officer | 230 | 1,142 | 933 | 7% | 8% | 6% | +0% | | Officer | 171 | 1,063 | 704 | 11% | 13% | 11% | +2% | | Higher Officer | 126 | 899 | 580 | 15% | 19% | 16% | +4% | | Senior Officer | 47 | 410 | 220 | 16% | 20% | 18% | +3% | | Band T | * | 20 | 6 | 6% | 8% | 3% | +1% | | Grade 7 | 31 | 285 | 150 | 16% | 19% | 16% | +2% | | Grade 6 | 11 | 108 | 51 | 17% | 16% | 12% | -1% | | Overall | 670 | 4,099 | 2,804 | 10% | 12% | 9% | +2% | Chart 8 shows average values of recognition bonuses issued by staff declared as disabled and non-disabled. Across most grades there is little difference in the values, however, at AA, Band T and G7 there distinct differences. These values represent very few staff so could be easily skewed in these grades.

Chart 8: Mean value of Recognition Bonus by grade and disability group (labels show % differences)

7.5 Simply Thanks

Table 34 shows a comparison of Simply Thanks awarded by disability and grade. Overall, the percentages of staff by headcount are very similar with 26% of disabled staff and 28% of those declared non-disabled getting an award. Across the grades this is similar, although more awards are given out to the lower grades comparatively.

At Band T there is a large difference between disabled and non-disabled people receiving an award, however, this is based on a very small number of staff and unknown responses could impact this if known.

Table 34: Number and proportion of staff receiving Simply Thanks by grade and disability group

| Grade | Number of Simply Thanks awards | % of staff given Simply Thanks | |-------------|--------------------------------|--------------------------------| | | Disabled | Non disabled | Unknown | Disabled | Non disabled | Unknown | Difference | | Admin. Assistant | 213 | 683 | 658 | 29% | 30% | 25% | +1% | | Assistant Officer | 816 | 4,430 | 3,977 | 26% | 30% | 26% | +3% | | Officer | 439 | 2,334 | 1,725 | 28% | 29% | 27% | +1% | | Higher Officer | 204 | 1,226 | 794 | 24% | 26% | 22% | +2% | | Senior Officer | 61 | 488 | 257 | 21% | 23% | 21% | +2% | | Band T | * | 47 | 30 | 13% | 19% | 16% | +6% | | Grade 7 | 38 | 308 | 160 | 20% | 20% | 17% | +0% | | Grade 6 | 7 | 95 | 68 | 11% | 14% | 16% | +3% | | Overall | 1,778 | 9,611 | 7,669 | 26% | 28% | 25% | +2% | 7.6 Temporary Promotions

Table 35 shows number of temporary promotions based on disability. Staff are shown under the grade that they were temporarily promoted from. The grade differences range from 1% to 9% in favour of non-disabled staff with an overall difference of 4% in favour of non-disabled staff.

Table 35: Number of temporary promotions and proportion of staff temporarily promoted by grade and disability group

| Grade | Number of temporary promotions | % of staff temporarily promoted | Difference | |----------------|--------------------------------|--------------------------------|------------| | | Disabled | Non-disabled | Unknown | Disabled | Non-disabled | Unknown | | | Admin. Assist. | 89 | 484 | 517 | 12% | 21% | 20% | +9% | | Assistant Officer | 195 | 1,497 | 1,095 | 6% | 10% | 7% | +4% | | Officer | 139 | 1,010 | 724 | 9% | 12% | 11% | +4% | | Higher Officer | 61 | 505 | 347 | 7% | 11% | 10% | +3% | | Senior Officer | 13 | 221 | 113 | 5% | 11% | 9% | +6% | | Band T | * | * | * | 3% | 1% | 0% | -2% | | Grade 7 | 10 | 103 | 72 | 5% | 7% | 8% | +1% | | Grade 6 | * | 19 | 5 | 3% | 3% | 1% | -0% | | Overall | 507 | 3,839 | 2,873 | 7% | 11% | 9% | +4% |

7.7 Permanent Promotions

Table 36 shows number of permanent promotions broken down to disabled and non-disabled staff. Whilst in grade there appears to be considerable differences in favour of those in the non-disabled group. When viewed as an overall percentage there is a minimal advantage of 1% in favour of those declared as non-disabled. This may be distorted by the low number in the disabled category and the number of unknown declarations.

Table 36: Number of permanent promotions and proportion of staff permanently promoted by grade and disability group

| Grade | Number of permanent promotions | % of staff permanently promoted | Difference | |----------------|--------------------------------|--------------------------------|------------| | | Disabled | Non-disabled | Unknown | Disabled | Non-disabled | Unknown | | | Admin. Assistant | 144 | 624 | 686 | 20% | 27% | 26% | +7% | | Assistant Officer | 67 | 475 | 361 | 2% | 3% | 2% | +1% | | Officer | 68 | 511 | 392 | 4% | 6% | 6% | +2% | | Higher Officer | 29 | 283 | 191 | 3% | 6% | 5% | +3% | | Senior Officer | 12 | 154 | 84 | 4% | 7% | 7% | +3% | | Band T | 6 | 44 | 24 | 19% | 17% | 13% | -2% | | Grade 7 | * | 82 | 43 | 2% | 5% | 5% | +4% | | Grade 6 | * | * | * | 0% | 1% | 0% | +1% | | Overall | 326 | 2,173 | 1,781 | 5% | 6% | 6% | +1% | 7.8 Summary

Table 37 shows a summary of the percentage differences between disabled and non-disabled staff.

- London pay range shows minimal differences whilst the national range shows negligible difference towards the disability of staff.
- Performance Managements shows some disparity, however, this is planned to be dealt with by the 2014 system and support.
- Recognition Bonus Scheme is even across numbers of awards however the values are not proportionate. This can be due to the nature of the award and easily skewed by the low numbers involved.
- Overall promotion comparisons are similar. With work ongoing to reduce temporary promotions, it is hoped that any bias is reduced from better management.

Table 37: Summary of percentage differences between disabled and non-disabled staff by grade and pay/reward type

| Grade | Base Pay | Top Performance Marking | Recognition Bonus Scheme | Simply Thanks | Promotion | |----------------|----------|--------------------------|--------------------------|---------------|-----------| | | London | National | Number | Value | Temp. | Perm. | | Admin. Assistant | 0% | 1% | 6% | 0% | 14% | 1% | 9% | 7% | | Assistant Officer | 1% | 1% | 2% | 0% | 2% | 3% | 4% | 1% | | Officer | 2% | 0% | 5% | 2% | -1% | 1% | 4% | 2% | | Higher Officer | 2% | 1% | 4% | 4% | 11% | 2% | 3% | 3% | | Senior Officer | 1% | 1% | 3% | 3% | 6% | 2% | 6% | 3% | | Band T | 1% | 0% | -5% | 1% | -83% | 6% | -2% | -2% | | Grade 7 | 0% | 0% | 6% | 2% | 17% | 0% | 1% | 4% | | Grade 6 | 1% | 0% | -1% | -1% | -7% | 3% | 0% | 1% |

Difference of 5% or greater in favour of disabled staff Difference of 5% or greater in favour of non-disabled staff 8. Working Hours

8.1 Introduction

Table 38 shows split between full-time employees and those with part-time contracts. It shows:

- Roughly a third of the department are on part-time contracts. These are primarily at the lower grades.
- At AO grade there are almost as many on part-time contracts as full-time. This may be from contact centre workforce numbers part year and term time contracts are widely used to manage demand.
- The part-time figures include partial retirement, part year part-time, part year full-time and full year part-time contracts.

Table 38: Headcount by grade and working hours

| Grade | Part-Time | Full-Time | Total | |----------------|-----------|-----------|-------| | Admin. Assistant | 2,522 | 2,669 | 5,191 | | Assistant Officer | 14,187 | 18,328 | 32,515| | Officer | 5,029 | 10,770 | 15,799| | Higher Officer | 2,124 | 7,101 | 9,225 | | Senior Officer | 594 | 3,135 | 3,729 | | Band T | 7 | 490 | 497 | | Grade 7 | 422 | 2,288 | 2,710 | | Grade 6 | 213 | 963 | 1,176 | | **Total** | **25,098**| **45,744**| **70,842**|

8.2 Base Pay

Table 39 and 40 shows differences in the mean pay for part and full-time workers.

- Lower grades, where part-time working is more prevalent show no difference between part and full-time working.
- HO and above show large advantages to those working part-time hours. This is likely due to partial retirement, pay award changes and skewed by the reduced numbers in those grades.
- Trends are representative of both London and National pay ranges.

Table 39: Mean London salary by grade and working hours (£)

| Grade | Part-Time | Full-Time | Difference | |----------------|-----------|-----------|------------| | Admin. Assistant | 20,421 | 20,363 | 0% | | Assistant Officer | 23,571 | 23,486 | 0% | | Officer | 29,841 | 29,294 | -2% | | Higher Officer | 36,283 | 35,380 | -3% | | Senior Officer | 42,340 | 41,279 | -3% | | Band T | 36,466 | 31,066 | -17% | | Grade 7 | 58,341 | 55,825 | -5% | | Grade 6 | 71,395 | 69,413 | -3% | Table 40: Mean National salary by grade and working hours (£)

| Grade | Part-Time | Full-Time | Difference | |------------------|-----------|-----------|------------| | Admin. Assistant | 16,121 | 15,911 | -1% | | Assistant Officer| 19,252 | 19,037 | -1% | | Officer | 25,588 | 25,042 | -2% | | Higher Officer | 31,565 | 30,954 | -2% | | Senior Officer | 38,628 | 37,715 | -2% | | Band T | 33,964 | 30,300 | -12% | | Grade 7 | 52,111 | 49,747 | -5% | | Grade 6 | 65,529 | 62,689 | -5% |

8.3 Top Performance Marking

Chart 9 shows percentage of staff in grade who achieved a top performance marking.

- At all grades full-time workers are shown with a higher probability to receive a top marking, ranging from 6% to 10% more likely.
- The 2014 Performance management system contains increased guidance on objective setting and unconscious bias.

8.4 Recognition Bonus Scheme

Table 41 shows numbers and corresponding percentages of people in each grade receiving a recognition bonus by full and part-time worker.

- In all grades there is clearly a skewing with more full-time workers by percentage receiving Recognition Bonus awards.
- Recognition Bonus Scheme is a payment awarded for exceptional effort outside of the performance appraisal system and such awards are set within parameters on the same basis for all staff both full-time and part-time. Table 41: Number and proportion of staff receiving recognition bonus scheme awards by grade and working hours

| Grade | Number of Recognition Bonuses | % of staff given Recognition Bonus | Difference | |----------------|-------------------------------|-----------------------------------|------------| | | Part-Time | Full-Time | Part-Time | Full-Time | | | Admin. Assistant | 151 | 235 | 6% | 8% | +2% | | Assist. Officer | 683 | 1,622 | 5% | 9% | +4% | | Officer | 451 | 1,487 | 9% | 14% | +5% | | Higher Officer | 311 | 1,294 | 15% | 18% | +3% | | Senior Officer | 82 | 595 | 14% | 20% | +6% | | Band T | * | 28 | * | 6% | | | Grade 7 | 65 | 401 | 15% | 18% | +3% | | Grade 6 | 19 | 151 | 9% | 16% | +6% | | Overall | 1,762 | 5,813 | 7% | 12% | +6% |

Chart 10 shows mean value of recognition bonuses awarded to both full and part-time workers. Here the values are all higher for full-time workers apart from at G6.

- Recognition Bonus Scheme is a payment awarded for exceptional effort outside of the performance appraisal system and such awards are set within parameters on the same basis for all staff both full-time and part-time.

8.5 Simply Thanks

Table 42 shows proportion of full and part-time staff who received a Simply Thanks voucher. In all grades except G6, there is a significant favouring of full-time staff in the allocation of the voucher. Similarly with Recognition Bonus Scheme, Simply Thanks is awarded outside of the performance appraisal system and such awards are set within parameters on the same basis for all staff both full-time and part-time. Table 42: Number and proportion of staff receiving Simply Thanks by grade and working hours

| Grade | Number of Simply Thanks awards | % of staff given Simply Thanks | |----------------|--------------------------------|-------------------------------| | | Part-Time | Full-Time | Part-Time | Full-Time | Difference | | Admin. Assistant | 637 | 917 | 24% | 31% | +7% | | Assist. Officer | 3,292 | 5,931 | 23% | 31% | +8% | | Officer | 1,253 | 3,245 | 25% | 30% | +5% | | Higher Officer | 450 | 1,774 | 21% | 25% | +3% | | Senior Officer | 105 | 701 | 18% | 23% | +5% | | Band T | * | 81 | - | 18% | | | Grade 7 | 61 | 445 | 14% | 20% | +5% | | Grade 6 | 32 | 138 | 16% | 14% | -1% | | Overall | 5,830 | 13,232 | 23% | 28% | +5% |

8.6 Temporary Promotions

Table 43 shows proportions of temporary promotion among full and part-time workers.

- There is clear favouring of full-time workers for temporary promotion, especially at the lower grades.
- As grade seniority increases, the difference between full and part-time is reduced, potentially because of the lower numbers involved.
- Work is ongoing to reduce the instances of temporary promotion and ensure filling of positions under it are administered fairly.

Table 43: Number of temporary promotions and proportion of staff promoted by grade and working hours

| Grade | Number of temporary promotions | % of staff temporarily promoted | |----------------|--------------------------------|-------------------------------| | | Part-time | Full-time | Part-time | Full-time | Difference | | Admin. Assistant | 368 | 722 | 14% | 24% | +11% | | Assistant Officer | 398 | 2,389 | 3% | 13% | +10% | | Officer | 291 | 1,582 | 6% | 14% | +9% | | Higher Officer | 89 | 824 | 4% | 12% | +7% | | Senior Officer | 22 | 325 | 4% | 11% | +7% | | Band T | * | * | 0% | 1% | +1% | | Grade 7 | 9 | 176 | 2% | 8% | +6% | | Grade 6 | * | 25 | 0% | 3% | +2% | | Overall | 1,177 | 6,043 | 5% | 13% | +8% |

8.7 Permanent Promotions

Table 44 shows numbers and proportion of permanent promotions issued to full and part-time staff. As with temporary promotion, there is a favour towards those on full-time contracts with an overall favouring of 4%. This is shown across all grades and more strongly in the lower grades than the higher grades.

Table 44: Number of permanent promotions and proportion of staff promoted by grade and working hours

| Grade | Number of permanent promotions | % of staff permanently promoted | |----------------|--------------------------------|-------------------------------| | | Part-time | Full-time | Part-time | Full-time | Difference | | Admin. Assistant | 525 | 929 | 19% | 31% | +12% | | Assistant Officer | 110 | 793 | 1% | 4% | +3% | | Officer | 130 | 841 | 3% | 8% | +5% | | Higher Officer | 35 | 468 | 2% | 7% | +5% | | Senior Officer | 9 | 241 | 2% | 8% | +6% | | Band T | * | 73 | 14% | 16% | +2% | | Grade 7 | * | 126 | 0% | 6% | +5% | | Grade 6 | 0 | 6 | 0% | 1% | +1% | | Overall | 809 | 3,477 | 3% | 7% | +4% | 8.8 Summary

Table 45 shows a summary of differences between full and part-time staff:

- For base pay, part-time workers are shown to be in favour on both the London and National pay scale at all grades.
- On performance marking, full-time staff are shown in favour. The 2014 performance management change is intended to address this as all line managers need to undertake unconscious bias training.
- Recognition bonus and Simply Thanks show in favour of those on full-time contracts, however, are issued outside of the performance appraisal system and such awards are set within parameters on the same basis for all staff both full-time and part-time.
- Temporary promotion appears to favour full-time workers especially at lower grades by up to 11%, as does permanent promotion.

Table 45: Summary of % differences between full time and part time by grade and pay/reward type

| Grade | Base Pay | Top Performance Marking | Recognition Bonus Scheme | Simply Thanks | Promotion | |----------------|----------|--------------------------|---------------------------|---------------|-----------| | | London | National | Number | Value | Number | Value | Temp. | Perm. | | Admin. Assistant | 0% | -1% | 8% | 2% | 20% | 7% | 11% | 12% | | Assistant Officer | 0% | -1% | 8% | 4% | 4% | 8% | 10% | 3% | | Officer | -2% | -2% | 7% | 5% | 10% | 5% | 9% | 5% | | Higher Officer | -3% | -2% | 7% | 3% | 16% | 3% | 7% | 5% | | Senior Officer | -3% | -2% | 9% | 6% | 13% | 5% | 7% | 6% | | Band T | -17% | -12% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 2% | | Grade 7 | -5% | -5% | 10% | 3% | 13% | 5% | 6% | 5% | | Grade 6 | -3% | -5% | 6% | 6% | -4% | -1% | 2% | 1% |

Difference of 5% or greater in favour of part time staff Difference of 5% or greater in favour of full time staff Appendix 1 - Median values

Table A: Median salary by gender

| Grade | Women | Men | Difference | |-------------|--------|--------|------------| | Grades AA - G6 | £19,974 | £24,537 | +19% |

Table B: Median salary by grade and gender

| Grade | Women | Men | Difference | |------------------|--------|--------|------------| | Admin. Assistant | £16,227| £16,227| 0% | | Assistant Officer| £19,974| £18,710| -7% | | Officer | £26,227| £26,227| 0% | | Higher Officer | £32,244| £32,622| +1% | | Senior Officer | £38,311| £39,643| +3% | | Band T | £29,693| £29,693| 0% | | Grade 7 | £51,445| £53,181| +3% | | Grade 6 | £64,800| £67,325| +4% |

Chart A: Median salary by gender (labels show differences)

Table C: Median London salary by grade and gender

| Grade | Women | Men | Difference | |------------------|--------|--------|------------| | Admin. Assistant | £20,465| £20,465| 0% | | Assistant Officer| £23,892| £23,892| 0% | | Officer | £30,331| £30,331| 0% | | Higher Officer | £37,105| £37,105| 0% | | Senior Officer | £42,396| £42,856| +1% | | Band T | £29,693| £29,693| 0% | | Grade 7 | £54,111| £55,331| +2% | | Grade 6 | £67,739| £73,238| +8% |

### Table D: Median National salary by grade and gender

| Grade | Women | Men | Difference | |----------------|--------|--------|------------| | Admin. Assistant | £16,227 | £16,227 | 0% | | Assistant Officer | £19,974 | £18,710 | -7% | | Officer | £26,227 | £26,227 | 0% | | Higher Officer | £30,864 | £32,622 | +5% | | Senior Officer | £37,492 | £39,643 | +5% | | Band T | £29,291 | £27,450 | -7% | | Grade 7 | £48,259 | £49,191 | +2% | | Grade 6 | £61,949 | £64,764 | +4% |

### Table E: Median London salary within grade and age group

| Grade | 16-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-55 | 56-64 | 65+ | |----------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|------| | Admin. Assistant | £18,595 | £20,465 | £20,465 | £20,465 | £20,465 | £20,465 | | Assistant Officer | £21,598 | £23,258 | £23,892 | £23,892 | £23,892 | £23,892 | | Officer | £26,094 | £26,438 | £30,331 | £30,331 | £30,331 | £30,331 | | Higher Officer | £32,320 | £32,320 | £34,395 | £37,105 | £37,105 | £37,105 | | Senior Officer | £37,990 | £38,480 | £39,905 | £42,856 | £42,856 | £42,856 | | Band T | £27,437 | £29,693 | £36,538 | £37,542 | £37,542 | - | | Grade 7 | £53,017 | £53,365 | £54,111 | £56,055 | £61,582 | £61,590 | | Grade 6 | - | £64,301 | £65,256 | £69,938 | £74,209 | £74,209 |

### Table F: Median National salary within grade and age group

| Grade | 16-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-55 | 56-64 | 65+ | |----------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|------| | Admin. Assistant | £14,943 | £16,227 | £16,227 | £16,227 | £16,227 | £16,227 | | Assistant Officer | £18,060 | £18,060 | £19,974 | £19,974 | £19,974 | £19,974 | | Officer | £22,967 | £22,967 | £25,647 | £26,227 | £26,227 | £26,227 | | Higher Officer | £29,009 | £29,009 | £29,352 | £32,622 | £32,622 | £32,622 | | Senior Officer | - | £35,687 | £35,687 | £38,001 | £39,643 | £39,643 | | Band T | £27,450 | £27,450 | £32,878 | £33,027 | £36,659 | - | | Grade 7 | £47,388 | £47,602 | £47,969 | £48,913 | £54,741 | £54,741 | | Grade 6 | - | £58,333 | £59,036 | £62,940 | £67,325 | £67,325 |

### Table G: Median London salary by grade and ethnicity group

| Grade | BAME | White | Unknown | Difference | |----------------|-------|-------|---------|------------| | Admin. Assistant | £20,465 | £20,465 | £20,465 | 0% | | Assistant Officer | £23,892 | £23,892 | £23,892 | 0% | | Officer | £30,331 | £30,331 | £30,331 | 0% | | Higher Officer | £36,348 | £37,105 | £37,105 | +2% | | Senior Officer | £41,190 | £42,856 | £42,856 | +4% | | Band T | £35,096 | £30,768 | £27,000 | -14% | | Grade 7 | £54,362 | £54,159 | £54,159 | -0% | | Grade 6 | £71,514 | £69,366 | £74,209 | -3% |

### Table H: Median National salary by grade and ethnicity group

| Grade | BAME | White | Unknown | Difference | |----------------|--------|--------|---------|------------| | Admin. Assistant | £16,227 | £16,227 | £16,227 | 0% | | Assistant Officer | £18,060 | £19,954 | £19,445 | +9% | | Officer | £25,639 | £26,227 | £26,227 | +2% | | Higher Officer | £30,390 | £31,887 | £31,887 | +5% | | Senior Officer | £37,864 | £38,001 | £38,311 | +0% | | Band T | £27,450 | £29,041 | £29,041 | +5% | | Grade 7 | £48,296 | £48,296 | £48,703 | 0% | | Grade 6 | £59,880 | £63,538 | £63,703 | +6% |

### Table I: Median London salary by grade and disability group

| Grade | Disabled | Non-disabled | Unknown | Difference | |----------------|----------|--------------|---------|------------| | Admin. Assistant | £20,465 | £20,465 | £20,465 | 0% | | Assistant Officer | £23,892 | £23,892 | £23,892 | 0% | | Officer | £30,331 | £30,331 | £30,331 | 0% | | Higher Officer | £37,105 | £37,105 | £37,105 | 0% | | Senior Officer | £42,856 | £42,856 | £42,856 | 0% | | Band T | £35,096 | £35,315 | £27,219 | +1% | | Grade 7 | £54,396 | £54,140 | £54,159 | -0% | | Grade 6 | £68,876 | £71,548 | £72,731 | +4% |

### Table J: Median National salary by grade and disability group

| Grade | Disabled | Non-disabled | Unknown | Difference | |----------------|----------|--------------|---------|------------| | Admin. Assistant | £16,227 | £16,227 | £16,227 | 0% | | Assistant Officer | £19,974 | £19,974 | £19,445 | +3% | | Officer | £26,227 | £26,227 | £26,227 | 0% | | Higher Officer | £31,887 | £32,622 | £31,455 | +2% | | Senior Officer | £38,001 | £39,643 | £38,001 | +4% | | Band T | £29,291 | £29,041 | £27,219 | -1% | | Grade 7 | £48,296 | £49,191 | £48,296 | +2% | | Grade 6 | £63,620 | £62,574 | £63,463 | -2% |

### Table K: Median London salary by grade and working hours

| Grade | Part Time | Full Time | Difference | |----------------|-----------|-----------|------------| | Admin. Assistant | £20,465 | £20,465 | 0% | | Assistant Officer | £23,892 | £23,892 | 0% | | Officer | £30,331 | £30,331 | 0% | | Higher Officer | £37,105 | £36,858 | -1% | | Senior Officer | £42,856 | £42,730 | -0% | | Band T | £37,542 | £29,693 | -26% | | Grade 7 | £59,494 | £54,154 | -10% | | Grade 6 | £74,209 | £69,341 | -7% |

### Table L: Median National salary by grade and working hours

| Grade | Part Time | Full Time | Difference | |----------------|-----------|-----------|------------| | Admin. Assistant | £16,227 | £16,227 | 0% | | Assistant Officer | £19,974 | £19,445 | -3% | | Officer | £26,227 | £25,647 | -2% | | Higher Officer | £32,622 | £31,011 | -5% | | Senior Officer | £39,643 | £37,833 | -5% | | Band T | £32,711 | £29,009 | -13% | | Grade 7 | £54,317 | £48,259 | -13% | | Grade 6 | £67,325 | £62,622 | -8% | Appendix 2 - Numbers of staff, by age band, on the minimum and maximum of their pay ranges

2013

| Age Bands | Number of staff in London on pay scale maximum by age band | Percentages by Age Bands | |-----------|----------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------| | Grade | Numbers by Age Bands | Total | 16-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-55 | 56-64 | 65+ | Total | | Admin. Assistant | 0 16 54 113 118 31 | 332 | 0% | 4% | 14% | 29% | 30% | 8% | 84% | | Assistant Officer | 0 47 201 475 217 40 | 981 | 0% | 3% | 14% | 34% | 15% | 3% | 69% | | Officer | 0 20 264 647 283 38 | 1252 | 0% | 1% | 13% | 32% | 14% | 2% | 62% | | Higher Officer | 0 2 106 553 267 21 | 949 | 0% | 0% | 6% | 31% | 15% | 1% | 53% | | Senior Officer | 0 3 26 238 169 7 | 443 | 0% | 0% | 3% | 28% | 20% | 1% | 52% | | Band T | 0 2 1 1 0 0 | 4 | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 2% | | Grade 7 | 0 0 7 78 73 6 | 164 | 0% | 0% | 1% | 9% | 8% | 1% | 18% | | Grade 6 | 0 0 12 87 92 11 | 202 | 0% | 0% | 2% | 17% | 18% | 2% | 39% |

| Age Bands | Number of staff in London below pay scale maximum by age band | Percentages by Age Bands | |-----------|----------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------| | Grade | Numbers by Age Bands | Total | 16-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-55 | 56-64 | 65+ | Total | | Admin. Assistant | 5 14 6 26 9 1 | 61 | 1% | 4% | 2% | 7% | 2% | 0% | 16% | | Assistant Officer | 7 117 110 133 60 4 | 431 | 0% | 8% | 8% | 9% | 4% | 0% | 31% | | Officer | 43 217 212 231 66 11 | 780 | 2% | 11% | 10% | 11% | 3% | 1% | 38% | | Higher Officer | 7 158 303 307 70 4 | 849 | 0% | 9% | 17% | 17% | 4% | 0% | 47% | | Senior Officer | 3 80 129 167 26 2 | 407 | 0% | 9% | 15% | 20% | 3% | 0% | 48% | | Band T | 89 88 11 8 1 0 | 197 | 44% | 44% | 5% | 4% | 0% | 0% | 98% | | Grade 7 | 2 203 176 274 73 5 | 733 | 0% | 23% | 20% | 31% | 8% | 1% | 82% | | Grade 6 | 0 29 97 150 35 0 | 311 | 0% | 6% | 19% | 29% | 7% | 0% | 61% |

| Age Bands | Number of staff in National on pay scale maximum by age band | Percentages by Age Bands | |-----------|----------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------| | Grade | Numbers by Age Bands | Total | 16-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-55 | 56-64 | 65+ | Total | | Admin. Assistant | 0 351 657 1334 1073 182 | 3597 | 0% | 7% | 14% | 28% | 22% | 4% | 75% | | Assistant Officer | 0 1465 4462 6430 2572 221 | 15150 | 0% | 5% | 14% | 21% | 8% | 1% | 49% | | Officer | 0 68 1204 3769 2049 122 | 7212 | 0% | 0% | 9% | 27% | 15% | 1% | 52% | | Higher Officer | 0 25 249 1780 1289 76 | 3419 | 0% | 0% | 3% | 24% | 17% | 1% | 46% | | Senior Officer | 0 0 78 636 528 27 | 1289 | 0% | 0% | 3% | 22% | 18% | 1% | 44% | | Band T | 0 0 0 5 0 0 | 5 | 0% | 0% | 0% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 2% | | Grade 7 | 0 2 12 154 198 15 | 381 | 0% | 0% | 1% | 8% | 11% | 1% | 21% | | Grade 6 | 0 1 10 93 109 6 | 219 | 0% | 0% | 1% | 11% | 12% | 1% | 25% |

| Age Bands | Number of staff in National below pay scale maximum by age band | Percentages by Age Bands | |-----------|----------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------| | Grade | Numbers by Age Bands | Total | 16-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-55 | 56-64 | 65+ | Total | | Admin. Assistant | 244 312 164 239 201 42 | 1202 | 5% | 7% | 3% | 5% | 4% | 1% | 25% | | Assistant Officer | 2643 5862 2987 2912 1437 110 | 15951 | 8% | 19% | 10% | 9% | 5% | 0% | 51% | | Officer | 87 1559 2273 2058 554 25 | 6556 | 1% | 11% | 17% | 15% | 4% | 0% | 48% | | Higher Officer | 10 527 1355 1739 367 9 | 4007 | 0% | 7% | 18% | 23% | 5% | 0% | 54% | | Senior Officer | 0 109 471 833 195 3 | 1611 | 0% | 4% | 16% | 29% | 7% | 0% | 56% | | Band T | 56 147 64 23 1 0 | 291 | 19% | 50% | 22% | 8% | 0% | 0% | 98% | | Grade 7 | 1 203 378 664 183 3 | 1432 | 0% | 11% | 21% | 37% | 10% | 0% | 79% | | Grade 6 | 0 25 98 347 185 8 | 663 | 0% | 3% | 11% | 39% | 21% | 1% | 75% |

### Number of staff in London on pay scale maximum by age band

| Grade | 16-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-55 | 56-64 | 65+ | Total | |----------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-----|-------| | Admin. Assistant | 0 | 8 | 27 | 57 | 64 | 27 | 183 | | Assistant Officer | 0 | 21 | 129 | 384 | 215 | 46 | 795 | | Officer | 0 | 9 | 144 | 522 | 294 | 49 | 1018 | | Higher Officer | 0 | 0 | 46 | 449 | 283 | 30 | 808 | | Senior Officer | 0 | 4 | 14 | 191 | 155 | 15 | 379 | | Band T | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Grade 7 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 52 | 72 | 8 | 136 | | Grade 6 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 63 | 93 | 9 | 173 |

| Grade | 16-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-55 | 56-64 | 65+ | Total | |----------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-----|-------| | Admin. Assistant | 2 | 2 | 13 | 1 | 3 | 23 | 23 | | Assistant Officer | 14 | 64 | 102 | 145 | 106 | 13 | 444 | | Officer | 105 | 205 | 216 | 245 | 80 | 14 | 865 | | Higher Officer | 49 | 188 | 327 | 409 | 121 | 3 | 1097 | | Senior Officer | 1 | 94 | 162 | 268 | 59 | 0 | 584 | | Band T | 79 | 88 | 9 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 180 | | Grade 7 | 6 | 216 | 216 | 303 | 96 | 6 | 843 | | Grade 6 | 0 | 52 | 113 | 156 | 52 | 1 | 374 |

### Number of staff in London below pay scale maximum by age band

| Grade | 16-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-55 | 56-64 | 65+ | Total | |----------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-----|-------| | Admin. Assistant | 0 | 161 | 339 | 851 | 818 | 171 | 2340 | | Assistant Officer | 0 | 676 | 3252 | 5431 | 2677 | 251 | 12287 | | Officer | 0 | 16 | 651 | 2751 | 2074 | 178 | 5670 | | Higher Officer | 0 | 13 | 125 | 1263 | 1215 | 112 | 2728 | | Senior Officer | 0 | 0 | 39 | 452 | 499 | 35 | 1025 | | Band T | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Grade 7 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 110 | 192 | 21 | 335 | | Grade 6 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 88 | 107 | 5 | 210 |

### Number of staff in National on pay scale maximum by age band

| Grade | 16-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-55 | 56-64 | 65+ | Total | |----------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-----|-------| | Admin. Assistant | 0 | 161 | 339 | 851 | 818 | 171 | 2340 | | Assistant Officer | 0 | 676 | 3252 | 5431 | 2677 | 251 | 12287 | | Officer | 0 | 16 | 651 | 2751 | 2074 | 178 | 5670 | | Higher Officer | 0 | 13 | 125 | 1263 | 1215 | 112 | 2728 | | Senior Officer | 0 | 0 | 39 | 452 | 499 | 35 | 1025 | | Band T | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Grade 7 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 110 | 192 | 21 | 335 | | Grade 6 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 88 | 107 | 5 | 210 |

### Number of staff in National below pay scale maximum by age band

| Grade | 16-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-55 | 56-64 | 65+ | Total | |----------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-----|-------| | Admin. Assistant | 36 | 66 | 49 | 81 | 69 | 17 | 318 | | Assistant Officer | 1205 | 4237 | 2698 | 2736 | 1559 | 126 | 12561 | | Officer | 289 | 1833 | 2370 | 2279 | 704 | 39 | 7514 | | Higher Officer | 62 | 859 | 1753 | 2294 | 577 | 13 | 5558 | | Senior Officer | 1 | 129 | 581 | 1175 | 302 | 5 | 2193 | | Band T | 167 | 221 | 61 | 23 | 1 | 0 | 473 | | Grade 7 | 1 | 212 | 414 | 778 | 275 | 6 | 1686 | | Grade 6 | 0 | 33 | 116 | 274 | 98 | 2 | 523 |

## Appendix 3 – Recognition Bonus Scheme diversity data

### Table 1: Comparison of recognition bonuses awarded by grade and gender

| Grade | Number of eligible Staff | Number of Awards | % receiving an award | |----------------|--------------------------|------------------|----------------------| | | Women | Men | Women | Men | Women | Men | | Admin. Assistant | 3,697 | 1,969 | 261 | 125 | 7.1% | 6.3% | | Assistant Officer | 21,637 | 11,574 | 1,463 | 842 | 6.8% | 7.3% | | Officer | 9,442 | 6,618 | 1,145 | 793 | 12.1% | 12.0% | | Higher Officer | 4,336 | 4,887 | 799 | 806 | 18.4% | 16.5% | | Senior Officer | 1,506 | 2,122 | 279 | 398 | 18.5% | 18.8% | | Band T | 170 | 296 | 8 | 20 | 4.7% | 6.8% | | Grade 7 | 1,096 | 1,559 | 168 | 298 | 15.3% | 19.1% | | Grade 6 | 410 | 757 | 63 | 107 | 15.4% | 14.1% | | **Total** | 42,294 | 29,782 | 4,186 | 3,389 | 9.9% | 11.4% |

### Table 2: Comparison of total and average value of recognition bonus awards by grade and gender

| Grade | Total value of RBS awards (£) | Average Awards (£) | |----------------|-------------------------------|--------------------| | | Women | Men | Women | Men | | Admin. Assistant | 56,600 | 30,000 | 217 | 240 | | Assistant Officer | 348,075 | 210,480 | 238 | 250 | | Officer | 289,875 | 207,426 | 253 | 262 | | Higher Officer | 223,830 | 218,225 | 280 | 271 | | Senior Officer | 95,700 | 132,975 | 343 | 334 | | Band T | 2,400 | 6,550 | 300 | 328 | | Grade 7 | 67,750 | 117,270 | 403 | 394 | | Grade 6 | 36,150 | 52,250 | 574 | 488 | | **Total** | 1,120,380 | 975,176 | 268 | 288 |

### Table 3: Comparison of recognition bonuses awarded by ethnicity group and grade

| Grade | Number of eligible staff | Number of awards | % receiving an award | |----------------|--------------------------|------------------|----------------------| | | BAME | White | Unknown | BAME | White | Unknown | BAME | White | Unknown | | Admin. Assistant | 379 | 3,510 | 1,777 | 26 | 265 | 95 | 6.9% | 7.5% | 5.3% | | Assistant Officer | 2,151 | 22,026 | 9,034 | 141 | 1,640 | 524 | 6.6% | 7.4% | 5.8% | | Officer | 1,025 | 11,144 | 3,891 | 96 | 1,453 | 389 | 9.4% | 13.0% | 10.0% | | Higher Officer | 498 | 6,301 | 2,424 | 80 | 1,130 | 395 | 16.1% | 17.9% | 16.3% | | Senior Officer | 151 | 2,628 | 849 | 23 | 517 | 137 | 15.2% | 19.7% | 16.1% | | Band T | 32 | 305 | 129 | * | 21 | * | 9.4% | 6.9% | 3.1% | | Grade 7 | 121 | 1,864 | 670 | 12 | 343 | 111 | 9.9% | 18.4% | 16.6% | | Grade 6 | 38 | 833 | 296 | * | 140 | 29 | 2.6% | 16.8% | 9.8% | | **Total** | 4,395 | 48,611 | 19,070 | 382 | 5,509 | 1,684 | 8.7% | 11.3% | 8.8% | Table 4: Comparison of total and average value of recognition bonus awards by ethnicity group and grade

| Grade | Total value of RBS awards (£) | Average Awards (£) | |----------------|-------------------------------|--------------------| | | BAME | White | Unknown | BAME | White | Unknown | | Admin. Assistant | 5,350 | 60,900 | 20,350 | 206 | 230 | 214 | | Assistant Officer | 35,445 | 393,515 | 129,595 | 251 | 240 | 247 | | Officer | 23,200 | 376,081 | 98,020 | 242 | 259 | 252 | | Higher Officer | 20,875 | 315,345 | 105,835 | 261 | 279 | 268 | | Senior Officer | 8,300 | 178,600 | 41,775 | 361 | 345 | 305 | | Band T | 1,100 | 6,300 | 1,550 | 367 | 300 | 388 | | Grade 7 | 7,070 | 133,500 | 44,450 | 589 | 389 | 400 | | Grade 6 | 250 | 76,500 | 11,650 | 250 | 546 | 402 | | Total | 101,590 | 1,540,741 | 453,225 | 266 | 280 | 269 |

Table 5: Comparison of recognition bonuses awarded by disability group and grade

| Grade | Number of eligible staff | Number of awards | % receiving an award | |----------------|--------------------------|------------------|----------------------| | | Disabled | Non-Disabled | Unknown | Disabled | Non-Disabled | Unknown | Disabled | Non-Disabled | Unknown | | Admin. Assistant | 729 | 2,296 | 2,641 | 54 | 172 | 160 | 7.4% | 7.5% | 6.1% | | Assistant Officer | 3,113 | 14,994 | 15,104 | 230 | 1,142 | 933 | 7.4% | 7.6% | 6.2% | | Officer | 1,581 | 8,125 | 6,354 | 171 | 1,063 | 704 | 10.8% | 13.1% | 11.1% | | Higher Officer | 853 | 4,775 | 3,595 | 126 | 899 | 580 | 14.8% | 18.8% | 16.1% | | Senior Officer | 286 | 2,094 | 1,248 | 47 | 410 | 220 | 16.4% | 19.6% | 17.6% | | Band T | 31 | 253 | 182 | * | 20 | 6 | 6.5% | 7.9% | 3.3% | | Grade 7 | 190 | 1,535 | 930 | 31 | 285 | 150 | 16.3% | 18.6% | 16.1% | | Grade 6 | 66 | 676 | 425 | 11 | 108 | 51 | 16.7% | 16.0% | 12.0% | | Total | 6,849 | 34,748 | 30,479 | 672 | 4,099 | 2,804 | 9.8% | 11.8% | 9.2% |

Table 6: Comparison of total and average value of recognition bonus awards by disability group and grade

| Grade | Total value of RBS awards (£) | Average awards (£) | |----------------|-------------------------------|--------------------| | | Disabled | Non-Disabled | Unknown | Disabled | Non-Disabled | Unknown | | Admin. Assistant | 11,125 | 41,075 | 34,400 | 206 | 239 | 215 | | Assistant Officer | 54,035 | 274,110 | 230,410 | 235 | 240 | 247 | | Officer | 44,100 | 270,731 | 182,470 | 258 | 255 | 259 | | Higher Officer | 31,725 | 253,135 | 157,195 | 252 | 282 | 271 | | Senior Officer | 15,875 | 146,575 | 66,225 | 338 | 358 | 301 | | Band T | 1,050 | 5,750 | 2,150 | 525 | 288 | 358 | | Grade 7 | 10,600 | 117,570 | 56,850 | 342 | 413 | 379 | | Grade 6 | 6,100 | 55,800 | 26,500 | 555 | 517 | 520 | | Total | 174,610 | 1,164,746 | 756,200 | 260 | 284 | 270 | Table 7: Comparison of recognition bonuses awarded by grade and working hours

| Grade | Number of eligible staff | Number of awards | % receiving an award | |----------------|--------------------------|------------------|----------------------| | | FT | PT | FT | PT | FT | PT | | Admin. Assistant | 2,967 | 2,699 | 235 | 151 | 8% | 6% | | Assistant Officer | 18,872 | 14,339 | 1,622 | 683 | 9% | 5% | | Officer | 10,987 | 5,073 | 1,487 | 451 | 14% | 9% | | Higher Officer | 7,124 | 2,099 | 1,294 | 311 | 18% | 15% | | Senior Officer | 3,036 | 592 | 595 | 82 | 20% | 14% | | Band T | 459 | 7 | 28 | * | 6% | 0% | | Grade 7 | 2,234 | 421 | 401 | 65 | 18% | 15% | | Grade 6 | 963 | 204 | 151 | 19 | 16% | 9% | | **Total** | **46,642** | **25,434** | **5,813** | **1,762** | **12%** | **7%** |

Table 8: Comparison of total and average value of recognition bonus awards by grade and working hours

| Grade | Total value of RBS awards (£) | Average Awards (£) | |----------------|-------------------------------|--------------------| | | FT | PT | FT | PT | | Admin. Assistant | 57,200 | 29,400 | 243 | 195 | | Assistant Officer | 398,040 | 160,515 | 245 | 235 | | Officer | 390,300 | 107,001 | 262 | 237 | | Higher Officer | 367,990 | 74,065 | 284 | 238 | | Senior Officer | 204,100 | 24,575 | 343 | 300 | | Band T | 8,950 | * | 320 | * | | Grade 7 | 162,070 | 22,950 | 404 | 353 | | Grade 6 | 78,150 | 10,250 | 518 | 539 | | **Total** | **1,666,800** | **428,756** | **287** | **243** |

Full-time = FT; Part-time = PT.

## Appendix 4 – Equal Pay Action Plan

| Issue | Action to take | Owner | Status | Progress | |-------|----------------|-------|--------|----------| | 1 | Pay Range positions | To monitor any pay gaps and continue to shorten the length of pay ranges. | Open | Since 2005 the pay ranges have shortened significantly. In 2015 the average pay range length is 11.7%. We reduced the average pay range length by 1.5% this year, with a particular reduction at AA. The rationale for pursuing range shortening as part of our reward strategy is that it: • increases the minimum faster than the maximum rewards the lowest paid in each grade (and the lowest paid in the department) • reduces time taken to progress from bottom of the pay range to the top • closes the gap between the highest and lowest paid in each team, resulting in less difference between those new to grade and established officers • generates larger Element 2 awards which, in time, will lead to faster progression through ranges because our pay system uses a % of this higher minima as the basis for the award. | | 2 | Flexible and part-time working patterns | We should continue to support flexible and part-time working patterns across all grades, subject to the needs of the business, ensuring both the organisation and our people benefit from a fully flexible and responsive workforce suitable for the modern Civil Service. | Open | | | | Improve declaration rates for ethnicity and for disability groups | Incomplete Management Information on disability and ethnicity, making it difficult to establish or analyse any patterns of bias. We need to actively explore ways of improving staff communication to encourage ethnicity and disability declarations. | Open | |---|---|---|---| | 4 | Support a consistent, fair approach to the performance management of all staff | Monitor and review the performance management policy: End of year markings should continue to be monitored and feedback sought about the operation of the performance management system. [We have also commissioned an internal audit in 2015 of the performance management process we introduced in 2013.] | Open | | 5 | Encourage a working environment free from unconscious bias | Expand the use of CS Learning Unconscious Bias training? etc? | Open | Ways of doing this are being taken forward with the Diversity team. |

## Appendix 5 - Actions from 2010 report

The table below shows updates on our recommendations identified in the 2010 equal pay review.

| Section Reference | Recommendation (2010 EPR) | Update (Follow up 2010 EPR 2011) | |-------------------|---------------------------|----------------------------------| | **Performance Management** | | | | 3.3, 4.2, 5.3, 6.3, 7.3 | Policy owners need to ensure that avoiding gender, age, racial, disability discrimination and discrimination against staff working part time is given sufficient prominence in the performance management guidance. The People Matters Committee have decided to form a sub working group to address diversity issues. The results from this report will provide information to that committee on the problems they need to address. | The HR Policy team have set up an Appraisal Working Group with representatives from the diversity team, trade unions and business partners to produce an action plan which ensures that managers increase their knowledge and awareness of the impact of their decisions on equality. The AWG will:

- identify the outcomes, success criteria and evaluation methods for the work
- use the 2010-11 appraisal outturn result to identify target groups of Managers and CSOs across HMRC for discussions
- create an action plan to deliver the required outcomes
- report on progress to PMC | | **Recognition Bonus Scheme** | | | | 3.4, 4.3, 5.4, 6.4, 7.4 | The Reward (Pay) Team will produce RBS data for Lines of Business by gender, age, ethnicity, disability and working hours for the Policy owners to analyse and take corrective action with the business areas to ensure that lines of business avoid any discrimination in making recognition bonus scheme payments. | HR Policy Team (Pay) has passed the RBS data to the relevant policy team to take forward with the business. The team will carry out the work in 2012-13. | | **Temporary Promotion** | | | | 3.6, 4.4, 5.5, 6.5, 7.5 | Taking forward Next Generation HR, Policy owners will consider what improvements to the temporary promotion guidance can be made to help avoid any gender, age, ethnicity, disability and working hour’s discrimination. | The HR Policy Team (Pay) will produce TP data for Lines of Business by gender, age, ethnicity, disability and working hours for the Policy owners to analyse and take corrective action with the business areas to ensure that lines of business avoid any discrimination in making temporary promotions. The team will carry out the work in 2012-13. |

Also the Diversity team to lead a problem solving exercise to investigate the treatment of staff in protected groups and part-timers arising from the implementation of performance management, RBS and temporary promotions. This exercise will involve LoB HR representatives, People Function, staff diversity networks and the DTUS.